On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 14:13, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:58:03 +0000
> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > Taking the address of a field in a packed struct is a bad idea, because
> > it might not be actually aligned enough for that pointer type (and
> > thus cause a crash on dereference on some host architectures). Newer
> > versions of clang warn about this.
> >
> > Avoid the problem by using local copies of the PMCW and SCSW
> > struct fields in copy_schib_from_guest() and copy_schib_to_guest().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > This seemed like a not totally ugly and reasonably localised fix
> > that satisfies clang. Oddly, this makes the generated object file
> > 15K smaller (421K vs 406K), so it might even be better code...
>
> Nice :)
>
> >
> > hw/s390x/css.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c
> > index 04ec5cc9705..ef07691e36b 100644
> > --- a/hw/s390x/css.c
> > +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c
> > @@ -1290,9 +1290,15 @@ void copy_scsw_to_guest(SCSW *dest, const SCSW *src)
> > static void copy_schib_to_guest(SCHIB *dest, const SCHIB *src)
> > {
> > int i;
> > + PMCW srcpmcw, destpmcw;
> > + SCSW srcscsw, destscsw;
>
> <bikeshed>
> I would find src_pmcw etc. easier to read. Other opinions?
> </bikeshed>
CODING_STYLE's "Naming" section agrees with you...
thanks
-- PMM
